The Peace Programme

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 52, March 25, 1916.

      Published according to theSotsial-Demokrattext.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      UNKNOWN,[19xx],

      Moscow,Volume 22,

      pages161-168.Translated:UNKNOWN UNKNOWNTranscription\Markup:D. WaltersPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2000

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Thequestion of the Social-Democratic “peace programme.” Is one
of the most important questions on the agenda of the Second
International Conference of the“Zimmerwaldists”.[1]In order to
bring home to the reader theessentialsof this
question we will quote a declaration made by Kautsky, the most
authoritative representative of the Second International and
most authoritative champion of the social-chauvinists in all
countries.

“TheInternational is not a fit instrument in time of war; it
is, essentially, an instrument of peace... The fight for peace,
class struggle in peace time.” (Neue Zeit.November 27,
1914.) “All peace programmes formulated by the International;the
programmes of the Copenhagen, London and Vienna Congresses, all
demand, and quite rightly, the recognition of the independence
of nations. This demand must also serve as our compass in the
present war.” (Ibid.,May 21, 1915.)

Thesefew words excellently express the “programme” of
international social-chauvinist unity and
conciliation. Everybody knows that Sudekum’s friends and
adherents met in Vienna and acted entirely in his spirit,
championing the cause of German imperialism under the cloak of
“defence of the fatherland.” The French, English and Russian
Sudekums met in London and championed the cause of “their”
national imperialism under the same cloak. The real policy of
the London and Vienna heroes of social-chauvinism is to justify
participation in the imperialist war, to justify the killing of
German workers by French workers, andvice versa, for
the sake of determining which national bourgeoisie shall have
preference in robbing other countries. And to conceal their real
policy, to deceive the workers, both the London andthe Vienna
heroes resort to thephrase:We “recognise” the
“independence of nations,” or in other words, recognise the
self-determination of nations, repudiate annexations, etc., etc.

Itis as clear as daylight that this “recognition” is a flagrant
lie, despicable hypocrisy, for it justifies participation in a
war whichbothsides are waging, not to make nations
independent, but to enslave them. Instead of exposing, unmasking
and condemning this hypocrisy, Kautsky, the great authority,sanctifiesit. The unanimous desire of the chauvinist
traitors to Socialism to deceive the workers is, in Kautsky’s
eyes, proof of the “unanimity” and virility of the International
on the question of peace!!! Kautsky converts nationalist, crude,
obvious, flagrant hypocrisy, which is obvious to the workers,
into international, subtle, cloaked hypocrisy, calculated to
throw dust in the eyes of the workers. Kautsky’s policy is a
hundred times more harmful and dangerous to the labour movement
than Sudekum’s policy; Kautsky’s hypocrisy is a hundred times
more repulsive.

Thisdoes not apply to Kautsky alone. Substantially the same
policy is pursued by Axelrod, Martov and Chkheidze in Russia; by
Longuet and Pressemane in France, Treves in Italy,
etc. Objectively, this policy means fostering bourgeois lies
among the working class; it means inculcating bourgeois ideas
into the minds of the proletariat. That both Sudekum and
Plekhanov merely repeat the bourgeois lies of the capitalists of
“their” respective nations is obvious; but it is not so obvious
that Kautsky sanctifiestheselies and elevates them to
the sphere of the “highest truth” of a “unanimous”
International. That the workers should regard the Sudekums and
Plekhanovs as authoritative and unanimous “Socialists” who have
temporarily fallen out is exactly what the bourgeoisie
wants. The very thing the bourgeoisie wants is that the workers
should bedivertedfrom the revolutionary struggle in
wartime by means of hypocritical, idle and non-committal phrases
about peace; that they should be lulled and soothed by hopes of
peace without annexations, a democratic peace, etc., etc.

Huysmanshas merely popularised Kautsky’s peace programme and
has added: courts of arbitration, democratisation of foreign
politics, etc. But the first and fundamentalpoint of a
Socialist peace programme must beto unmaskthe
hypocrisyof the Kautskyist peace programme, whichstrengthensbourgeois influence over the proletariat.

Letus recall the fundamental postulates of Socialist doctrine,
which the Kautskyists have distorted. War is the continuation,
by forcible means, of the politics pursued by the ruling classes
of the belligerent Powers long before the outbreak of war. Peace
is a continuation of thevery samepolitics, with aregistrationof the changes brought about in the
relation of forces of the antagonists as a result of military
operations. War does not change the direction in which politics
developed prior to the war; it onlyacceleratesthat
development.

Thewar of 1870–71 was a continuation of the progressive
bourgeois policy (which was pursued for decades) of liberating
and uniting Germany. Thedebacleand overthrow of
Napoleon III hastened that liberation. The peace programme of
the Socialists of that epoch took this progressive bourgeois
result into account and advocated support for the democratic
bourgeoisie, urging: no plunder of France; an honourable peace
with the republic.

Howclownish is the attempt slavishly to repeat this example
under the conditions prevailing during the imperialist war of
1914-16! This war is the continuation of the politics of an
over-ripe reactionary bourgeoisie, which has plundered the
world, which has seized colonies, etc. Owing to the objective
situation, the present warcannot,on the basis of
bourgeois relations, lead to any democratic “progress” whatever;
no matter what the outcome of the war may be, it can lead only
to the intensification and extension of oppression in general,
and of national oppression in particular.

Thatwar accelerated development in a democratic
bourgeois-progressive direction: it resulted in the overthrow
of Napoleon III and in the unification of
Germany.Thiswar is accelerating developmentonlyin the direction of the socialist
revolution.Thenthe programme of a democratic
(bourgeois) peace had anobjectivehistorical
basis.Nowthere is no such basis, and all phrases
about a democratic peace is a bourgeois lie, the objective
purpose of which is to divert the workers from the
revolutionary struggle for socialism!Thenthe
Socialists, by their programme of a democratic peace,
supported a deep-going bourgeois-democratic movement of the
masses (for the overthrowof Napoleon III and the unification
of Germany), which had been manifesting itself for
decades.Now,with their programme of a democratic
peace on the basis of bourgeois relations the Socialists are
helping thedeceptionof the people by the
bourgeoisie, whose aim is to divert the proletariat from thesocialistrevolution.

Justas phrases about “defence of the fatherland” inculcate into
the minds of the masses the ideology of a national war of
liberation by means of fraud, so phrases about a democratic
peace inculcate that very same bourgeois liein a
roundabout way.

“Thatmeans that you have no peace programme, that you are
opposed to democratic demands,” the Kautskyists argue, in the
hope that inattentive people will not notice that this objection
substitutes non-existent bourgeois-democratic tasks for the
existing socialist tasks.

Ohno, gentlemen, we reply to the Kautskyists. We are infavourof democratic demands, wealonefight
for themsincerely,for the objective historical
situation prevents us from advancing them except in connection
with the socialist revolution. Take, for example, the “compass”
which Kautsky and Co. employ for the bourgeois deception of the
workers.

Südekumand Plekhanov are “unanimous” in their “peace
programme.” Down with annexations! Support the independence of
nations! And note this: the Südekums arerightwhen
they say that Russia’s attitude towards Poland, Finland, etc.,
is an annexationist attitude. And so is Plekhanov right when he
says that Germany’s attitude towards Alsace-Lorraine, Serbia,
Belgium, etc, is also annexationist. Both are right, are they
not) And in this way Kautsky “reconciles” the German Südekum
with the Russian Südekums!!!

Butevery sensible worker will see immediately that Kautsky andboththe Südekums are hypocrites. This is obvious. Thedutyof a Socialist is not to make peace with
hypocritical democracy, but tounmaskit. How can it be
unmasked? Very simply. “Recognition” of the independence of
nations can be regarded as sincereonlywhere the
representative of the oppressing nation has demanded, both
before and during the war, freedom of secession for the nation
which is oppressed byhis own“fatherland.”

Thisdemand alone is in accord with Marxism. Marx advanced it in
the interests of the English proletariat when he demanded
freedom for Ireland, although he admitted at the same time the
probability that federation would follow secession. In other
words, he demanded the right of secession, not for the purpose
of splitting and isolating countries, but for the purpose of
creating more durable and democratic ties. In all cases where
there are oppressed and oppressing nations, where there are no
special circumstances which distinguish revolutionary-democratic
nations from reactionary nations (as was the case in the
’forties of the nineteenth century), Marx’s policy in relation
to Ireland must serve as a model for proletarian policy. But
imperialism is precisely the epoch in which the division of
nations into oppressors and oppressed is the essential and
typical division, and it is utterly impossible to draw a
distinction between reactionary and revolutionary nations in
Europe.

Asearly as 1913, our Party, in a resolution on the national
question, made it the duty of Social-Democrats to apply the term
self-determination in the sense here indicated. And the war of
1914-16 has fully shown that we were right.

TakeKautsky’s latest article in theNeue Zeitof March
3, 1916. He openly declares himself to be inagreementwith Austerlitz, the notorious, extreme German chauvinist in
Austria, the editor of the chauvinist ViennaArbeirer-Zeitung,[2]when he says that “the independence
ofanation must not be confused with its sovereignty”.
In other words, national autonomy within a “nationality state”
is good enough for the oppressed nations, and it is not
necessary to demand for them the equal right to political
independence. In this very article, however, Kautsky asserts
that it is impossible to prove that “it is essential for the
Poles to adhere to the Russian state”!!!

Whatdoes this mean? It means that to please Hindenburg,
Südekum, Austerlitz and Co, Kautsky recognises Poland’s righttosecede from Russia, although Russia is a
“nationality state,” but not a word does he say about freedom
for the Poles to secede from Germany!!! In this very article
Kautsky declares that the French Socialists had departed from
internationalism by wanting to achieve the freedom of
Alsace-Lorraineby means of war. But he says nothing
about the German Südekums and Co.deviatingfrom
internationalism when they refuse to demand freedom for
Alsace-Lorraine to secedefrom Germany!

Kautskyemploys the phrase “a nationality state”—a phrase
that can he applied to England in relation to Ireland, and to
Germany in relation to Poland, Alsace-Lorraine,
etc.—obviously for the purpose of defending
social-chauvinism. He has converted the slogan “fight against
annexations” into a “programme ofpeace”... with the
chauvinists, into glaring hypocrisy. And in this very article,
Kautsky repeats the honeyed little udas speech: “The
International has never ceased to demand the consent of the
affected populations when state frontiers are to be altered.” Is
it not clear that Südekum and Co. demand the “consent” of the
Alsatians and Belgians to be annexed to Germany and that
Austerlitz and Co. demand the “consent” of the Poles and Serbs
to be annexed to Austria!

Andwhat about the Russian Kautskyist Martov He wrote to the
Gvozdevist journalNash
Golos[3](Samara) to prove the
indisputable truth that self-determination of nations does not
necessarily imply defence of the fatherland in an imperialist
war. But Martov says nothing about the fact that a Russian
Social-Democrat betrays the principle of self-determination if
he does not demand theright of secessionfor
the nations oppressed by the Great Russians; and in this way
Martov stretches out the hand of peace to the Alexinskys, the
Gvozdevs, the Dotresovs, and the Plekhanovs! Martov is silent on
this point also in the underground press! He argues against the
Dutchman Gorter, although Gorter, while wrongly repudiating the
principle of self-determination of nations, correctlyappliesit by demandingpolitical independencefor the Dutch Indies and by unmasking the betrayal of Socialism
by the Dutch opportunists who disagree with this demand. Martov,
however, does not argue against his secretary, Semkovsky, who in
1912-15 was theonlywriter in the liquidationist press
whorepudiatedthe right of secession and
self-determination in general!

Isit not plain that Martov “advocates” self-determination just
as hypocritically as Kautsky does; that he, too, is covering up
his desireto make peacewith the chauvinists?

Andwhat about Trotsky? He is body and soulforself-determination, but in his case, too, it is an idle phrase,
for he does not demand freedom of secession for nations
oppressed by the “fatherland” of the Socialist of thegivennationality; he issilentabout the
hypocrisy of Kautsky and the Kautskyists!

Thiskind of “struggle against annexations” serves to deceive
the workers and not toexplainthe programme of the
Social-Democrats; it is anevasionof the problem and
not a concrete indication of the duty of internationalists; it
is a concession to nationalist prejudices and to the selfish
interests of nationalism (“we” all, bourgeois and
social-chauvinists alike, derive “benefits” from “our”
fatherland’s oppression of other nations!) but not a struggle
against nationalism.

The“peace programme” of Social-Democracy must, in the first
place, unmask the hypocrisy of the bourgeois, social-chauvinist
and Kautskyist phrases about peace. This is the first and
fundamental thing. Unless we do that we shall be willingly or
unwillingly helping todeceivethe masses. Our “peace
programme” demands that the principal democratic point on this
question—the repudiation of annexations—should be
applied in practice and not in words, that it should serve to
promote the propaganda of internationalism, not of national
hypocrisy. In order that this may do so, we must explain to the
masses that the repudiation of annexations,i.e.,the
recognition of self-determination, is sincere only when the
Socialists ofeverynation demand the right of
secession for the nations that are oppressed by their
nations. As a positive slogan, one capable of drawing the masses
into the revolutionary struggle and explaining the necessity for
adopting revolutionary measures to attain a “democratic peace,”
we must advance the slogan: Repudiation of the National Debt.

Finally,our “peace programme” must explain that the imperialist
Powers and the imperialist bourgeoisiecannotgrant a
democratic peace. Such a peacemustbe sought and
fought for, not in thepast,notin a
reactionary utopia of a non-imperialist capitalism, nor in a
league of equal nationsundercapitalism, butin
the future,in the socialist revolution of the
proletariat. Not a single fundamental democratic demand can be
achieved to any considerableextent, or any degree of
permanency, in the advanced imperialist states, except by
revolutionary battles under the banner of socialism.

Whoeverpromises the nations a “democratic” peace without at the
same time preaching the socialist revolution, or while
repudiating the struggle for it—the struggle which must be
carried on now, during the war—is deceiving the
proletariat.

[1][PLACEHOLDER.]

[2][PLACEHOLDER.]

[3][PLACEHOLDER.]